Chapter XXVI: The Calhoun Trial

The trial of Patrick Calhoun for offering a bribe to Supervisor Fred Nicholas began immediately after the holidays, following the Ruef trials. The trial brought into play all the machinery of the opposition at its worst to the prosecution. At all points the defense was carried on on a larger scale than at the former trials. There were more and better lawyers employed by the defendant; there were more thugs in evidence in the courtroom; there was greater activity on the part of the detectives, spies and agents engaged to meet the efforts of the men working under Detective Burns.

Due largely to the activity of this army of opposition to the prosecution, the weakness of the methods of enforcing the criminal law was emphasized even more than at the other trials, and the defects shown up more glaringly.

To secure a jury to try Ruef, for example, 1450 talesmen were called. This was regarded as a record. But before a jury had been secured to try Calhoun 2370 veniremen had been called into court, and no less than 922 examined. Thus, for every juror who sat at the Calhoun trial, 197 talesmen were called, and seventy-seven were questioned by the attorneys.

The estimated number of words contained in the transcript of the examination of these talesmen was in millions. To conduct this examination three months were required. The securing of a jury to try Ruef occupied the time of the court for two months only. But it must be noted that the securing of the Calhoun and the Ruef juries occupied five months--to try charges contained in two indictments, whereas in all the graft cases 160 indictments had been brought.

The defendants who preceded Calhoun to trial had an army of attorneys to represent them. But Calhoun's line of legal representatives was quite double that of any of his fellow graft defendants who had been caught in the prosecution drag-net.

Prominent in Mr. Calhoun's defense appeared A. A. Moore, Stanley Moore, Lewis F. Byington, Earl Rogers, J. J. Barrett and Alexander King, supported by the giant of the California bar, Garret McEnerney. That the master mind of Garret McEnerney was directing many of the graft defense cases had been intimated from time to time, but there is no question about McEnerney's part in the defense of Calhoun.

And opposed to the strongest men of the California bar, The People had two representatives. One of them, Heney, was serving without pay, was still a sick man not having fully recovered from his wound inflicted but a few months before, and worn out from the continued effort of a three-years' fight to get at the root of municipal corruption in San Francisco. The second, a regularly employed Deputy District Attorney, John J. O'Gara, was receiving $300 a month for his services. It is not unlikely that some of the best of the attorneys for the defense, for defending Mr. Calhoun, received as much in a day. Compared with the army of lawyers for the defense, the representation of The People was pitifully small.

Through the long, grueling contest of the trial, lasting for five months and eight days,[423] Heney and O'Gara were kept under constant strain, while the defendant's attorneys relieved one another when their labors became irksome.

The bulk of the hammering and of the technical quibbling was directed against Heney. Heney, still suffering from the effects of his wound, received at the Ruef trial, worn-out, over-worked, harassed in the public prints, would at times become thoroughly exasperated. Every indication of impatience on his part, or of temper, was made subject of attack in the opposing newspapers.[424] These attacks, long persisted in, did their part in the general campaign to weary the public with the prosecution, and undermine confidence in Heney.

The examination of talesmen for jury service showed the results of this long-continued campaign. Many talesmen announced their sympathy with the defendants, and deplored the prosecution, which they appeared to believe had brought shame upon and injured the city. Some went so far as to call the prosecution of Calhoun an outrage.[425] Others intimated that the giving of bribe money might have been justifiable.[426] Such expressions, coming from men of average intelligence and ordinarily law-abiding, showed conclusively that the persistent efforts of the defense to poison the public mind against the prosecution was at last bringing results.

But after months of effort a jury was secured to hear the case and the trial began.

Heney, in his opening statement to the jury, set forth the prosecution expected to prove that Ruef authorized James L. Gallagher to offer the bribe to Supervisor Nicholas; that Ruef afterwards gave the money to Gallagher to pay Nicholas; that Calhoun authorized Ruef, either through Tirey L. Ford, or personally, or both, to make the offer to Gallagher and to authorize Gallagher to make the offer to Nicholas.

The prosecution showed by Gallagher that the offer had been made to Nicholas and to every member of the Board of Supervisors with the exception of Rea. In this, Gallagher was corroborated by the Supervisors. Not only had the offer been made, but the bribe money had been paid.

Gallagher testified that he had received $85,000 from Ruef to be distributed among the Supervisors for their votes which gave the United Railroads its overhead trolley permit, and that, after keeping out $15,000 for himself, he had distributed the money among them, giving to Supervisor Nicholas $4000 of the amount.

Supervisor Nicholas testified that Gallagher had offered him the bribe and had paid him the money.

By the officials of the United States Mint, the prosecution showed that $200,000, about the time of the bribery, had been turned over to General Tirey L. Ford, on order from Mr. Calhoun. The $200,000 could not be accounted for by the available books of the United Railroads. Ruef and Ford were shown to have been in close touch with each other during the period.[427]

But nobody could be found who had seen Ford pass $200,000 to Mr. Ruef.

Here was, perhaps, a weak link in the prosecution's chain of evidence.

Mr. Calhoun did not, however, put General Ford on the stand to tell what he did with the money. Neither did Mr. Calhoun put Mr. Ruef on the stand to testify as to the source of the $85,000 which Ruef gave to Gallagher to pay the Supervisors for their votes by which the trolley permit was awarded to the United Railroads.

But, however weak the link between Ford and Ruef, there was no weakness in the link between Calhoun and Ford. By evidence that could not be disputed, the prosecution showed that Ford got $200,000 through Calhoun.

Frank A. Leach, Director of the United States Mint at San Francisco, testified that Calhoun, with General Ford, had called upon him at the Mint sometime between May 22 and May 24, 1906.[428] Calhoun called, Leach testified, to ascertain how $200,000, which had been transferred from the East to his credit."[429] could be drawn out in certain sums in favor of such persons as he might designate.

Leach testified he had furnished Calhoun with the desired information.

Ford afterwards appeared at the Mint with an order from Mr. Calhoun for $50,000,[430] which was paid to him. Later, Calhoun telegraphed to Leach from Cleveland, Ohio, to pay Ford a second $50,000; and still later the $100,000 remaining.[431]

The Mint officials paid Ford the money in accordance with Mr. Calhoun's directions. Mr. Calhoun offered no evidence to show why this considerable sum was paid to General Ford, or what General Ford was supposed to have done with it. Mr. Calhoun, when the last of the $200,000 had been turned over to General Ford, had given Mr. Leach a receipt[432] in full for the amount.

But what was quite as extraordinary as this direct evidence against Mr. Calhoun was the offer of the District Attorney to meet the defense's charges and insinuations against the prosecution. Rudolph Spreckels was called to the stand. The attorneys for the defense were invited to ask him any questions they saw fit.

"From the time we attempted to impanel this jury," said Heney, in extending this invitation, "the attorneys for the defendant have been attempting to try Rudolph Spreckels, James D. Phelan and God knows who else. By insinuations they have been endeavoring to get into the mind of this jury the idea that Mr. Spreckels was back of this prosecution for malicious purposes and for gain, for profit, to get hold of the United Railroads. I told them when they were making those insinuations that I proposed to throw down the bars to them; that I proposed to force them to the proof; that I would put the witnesses upon the stand and would not object to a single question asked them.

"The witness, Spreckels, is now upon the stand, and we won't object to their asking him anything on earth, from the time he was born down to the present day, to the present minute."

One of the most frequent charges which had been made against the prosecution was that it had expended money wrongfully. Rogers asked for a statement of the prosecution's receipts and disbursements.

Mr. Spreckels announced his willingness to account for every dollar expended, but refused, until he should be directed by the Court, to give the names of the contributors to the fund.[433]

"Will you," broke in Heney addressing Calhoun's lawyers, "produce an itemized account of moneys expended in the defense of these matters?"

"I beg your pardon?" questioned Rogers.

"I say," said Heney, "will you produce an itemized account of moneys expended in opposition to these prosecutions?"

The defense did not seize this opportunity to clear itself of the not unreasonable suspicion that money had been used to influence jurors to vote for acquittals; to get witnesses out of the State; to corrupt agents of the prosecution; and perhaps to attempt murder. On the contrary, the attorneys for the defense denounced Mr. Heney's suggestion as "misconduct."

Mr. Spreckels stated his willingness to furnish itemized statement of the prosecution's expenditures. This he did. Furthermore, he submitted himself to rigorous cross-examination regarding the items of his account. But the clever attorneys for the defense uncovered nothing upon which charge of wrongful expenditure or questionable methods could be based.[434]

The charge that Spreckels had engaged in the Graft Prosecution to injure the United Railroads came to as sorry an ending. By competent witnesses it was shown that the prosecution had been planned, and the preliminary work done, before the bribe-money in the trolley deal had passed. Furthermore, it was shown that Spreckels had offered to assist Calhoun to have the time of his franchises extended, if such extension were necessary for practical installation of the conduit electric system, asking only that the unsightly poles and overhead wires be not inflicted upon the city. It was only when Calhoun, dealing with a Board of Supervisors suspected of corruption, showed conclusively that he proposed to install an over-head trolley system, whether the people wanted it or not, that Spreckels and his associates organized their traction company. It was shown that the object of the organizers of the company was to demonstrate that the conduit system was practical for San Francisco. And, finally, the articles of incorporation under which the company proposed to operate, provided for the transfer under equitable arrangements of the proposed new lines to the city, should the city wish at any time to take them over. Mr. Spreckels and his associates were shown not to have had desire or inclination to engage in the street-car business. But it was shown that they proposed to fight for what they considered the best interests of the city of their birth and residence.

Another frequently-made charge had been that Heney was the attorney for Rudolph Spreckels, directing a privately-conducted prosecution.[435] As a matter of fact, Langdon, and not Heney, headed the prosecution, and Langdon let it be known at all times that he was the final arbitrator in all questions growing out of the prosecution. And at no time did he fail to assert himself. But at the Calhoun trial, the fishing expeditions in which the defense indulged, brought the facts out convincingly that Heney, far from being in Spreckels' employ, or directly or indirectly receiving money from him for graft-prosecution services, or any other services, was giving his time to the city, without reward or hope of reward.

Thus, point by point, the allegations which the graft defense had for three years been making against the prosecution, were shown to be without foundation in fact. The bars were down, as Heney put it. Rudolph Spreckels and others who had made the prosecution possible, were under oath, and were prepared to answer any question that might be put to them. The ablest lawyers, cunning in cross-examination, selected, indeed, for their craft and skill in searching out the innermost secrets of witnesses, were there to question.

But not one statement reflecting upon the purposes of the prosecution, nor of its motives, nor of its methods, was brought out. The graft defense, free to question as it would, was unable to justify the insinuations of baseness of purpose and method; nor to justify its loosely-made charges against the prosecution.[436]

Indeed, the attorneys for Mr. Calhoun even resisted full discussion of Mr. Spreckels' motives.

The intimation, so broad as to approach positive declaration, had been made repeatedly that Mr. Spreckels had inaugurated the graft prosecution for the purpose of injuring Mr. Calhoun and the properties which he represented--the United Railroads. On re-direct examination, Mr. Spreckels was asked by the attorney for the State whether, at the time he had first discussed investigation of graft conditions in San Francisco with Mr. Heney, he had had any idea of investigating Mr. Calhoun. Mr. Barrett, representing the defendant, strongly objected to this line of questioning.[437]

After a wrangle between the attorneys as to the matter of the witness's motives, Spreckels was permitted to make a brief statement to the Court.

"My motives," he said, "have been inquired into, and I have indicated to Mr. Rogers (Calhoun's attorney) that as far as I am concerned the bars are absolutely down; I am willing to take the judgment of this community as to motives, as to my purposes and as to the truthfulness of my statements made here."

Mr. Spreckels was finally permitted to answer the question. He answered in the negative.[438]

The defendant placed no witnesses on the stand. The explanation of their peculiar position which the United Railroads officials were looked upon to make when opportunity offered was not made. The denials which they had for three years been indignantly making through the newspapers were not stated under oath.[439]

The trial resulted in a disagreement. According to published statements, purporting to come from members of the jury, on the first ballot four jurors stood for conviction, eight for acquittal; on the second, nine for acquittal, three for conviction. On all the other ballots the jurors stood ten for acquittal and two for conviction.[440]

Immediately after announcement of the verdict,[441] the District Attorney attempted to bring Calhoun to trial for the alleged offering of a bribe to Supervisor John J. Furey. This the defense resisted. The community was filled with the suggestion that the Calhoun jury, having failed to agree, the costly graft trials should be brought to an end.[442]

Nevertheless, Calhoun's second trial was begun. But before a jury could be secured, Francis J. Heney had been defeated for election as District Attorney. This meant the breaking down of the graft prosecution. The District Attorney consented to continuance of the case until the new administration should take charge. The case was not pressed by Mr. Langdon's successor, and finally, with the other graft charges, was dismissed.

FOOTNOTES:

[423] From January 12, 1909, to June 20, 1909.

[424] Earl Rogers showed himself particularly clever at goading. His
ability in this line was shown to advantage also, at the trial
of Clarence Darrow, charged with jury fixing at Los Angeles,
whom Rogers defended. The Fresno Republican in comparing the
two cases said, in its issue of July 12, 1912: "When Heney
tilted, as prosecutor against Earl Rogers as an apologist for
crime, he was the 'wild man of Borneo,' to the more staid and
polished members of the San Francisco bar. But now that
Fredericks and Ford, prosecutors of Los Angeles, lost their
tempers under the goadings of this same Rogers in the Darrow
case, nothing is said about the wild man of Borneo. Fredericks
and Ford, unlike Heney, are recognized as the socially elect
of the profession, but Heney in the wildest excitement of the
Calhoun trials, never tried to throw an ink bottle at Rogers,
as Ford tried to do the other day. Plainly, as a matter of
social etiquette, it depends upon whose ox Rogers gores."

[425] See footnote 269.

[426] The Chronicle, as early as July 10, 1907, punctured the theory
that the bribing of public servants is justifiable.

The Chronicle said: "In the examination of a talesman in Judge
Lawlor's court on Monday an attorney for the defendant charged
with the crime of bribing city officials made the statement
that San Francisco is divided on the subject of punishing men
who have committed the offense named. He said: 'You know, of
course, that San Francisco is divided on this graft question.
Half in favor of the prosecution, and, say, half contrary
minded.' Possibly he believes that this is true, but there is
absolutely no foundation for the assumption. There is no
evidence on which to base such a statement, and it would not
have been made if there was any possibility of determining its
truth or falsity by some simple test.

"It is doubtless true that there are plenty of men in this
community who regard the crime of bribery lightly, and are
ready to defend it on the ground that laxity in the conduct of
municipal affairs made it necessary to resort to it or abandon
all enterprise. But the great majority of citizens take the
sound view that both briber and bribed are equally guilty and
equally deserving of punishment, and utterly refuse to accept
the excuse that the corporations which have been
systematically debauching city officials were forced to that
course. They know that the eager desire to secure advantages
is at the bottom of the corrupt condition of our municipal
affairs, and they feel that unless examples can be made of
those who have shown a willingness to profit by the greed and
turpitude of those elected to office the practice of bribing
will be again resumed and continued as long as there is
anything to be gained by the pursuit of criminal methods.

"Even if it were true that the community is evenly divided it
would be outrageous to plead that fact as a justification for
the commission of criminal acts. If San Francisco should be so
lost to shame that nine-tenths of her population regarded
bribery with tolerance, it would be no less a crime, but there
would be infinitely more reason for striving to punish
offenders of that character to save the city from the moral
degradation involved in the acceptance of the idea that it is
excusable to defy the laws by debauching public officials."

At the time of Calhoun's trial, however, The Chronicle read
talesmen who sided with the defense no such lecture.

[427] See Chapter XV, "The Ford Trials."

[428] The trolley-permit was granted May 21, 1906.

[429] The letter placing $200,000 to Calhoun's credit read as
follows:

"Treasury Department, Washington, May 22, 1906. Superintendent
of the United States Mint, San Francisco, Cal. Sir:
Confirmation is certified to a telegram sent you this day, in
substance as follows:

"'Pay to Patrick Calhoun, President United Railroads,
$200,000; to Lachman and Jacobi, $12,500; to Beech Thompson,
$20,000; to Canadian Bank of Commerce, $250,000; on account of
original certificates of deposit Nos. 5251, 5252, 5253 and
5267, issued by the Assistant Treasurer of the United States,
New York city. In all amounting to $482,500.

"'Pay to master California Lodge. Number 1. A. F. and A. M.,
$319.65 on account of original certificate of deposit No. 112,
issued by the Assistant Treasurer of the United States,
Chicago.' Respectfully,
"CHARLES H. TREAT,
"Treasurer of the United States."

[430] The telegrams directing the money to be paid Ford read:

"Cleveland, Ohio, July 28, 06. Hon. Frank A. Leach,
Superintendent U. S. Mint, San Francisco. Please pay to Tirey
L. Ford, or order, fifty thousand dollars and charge same to
my account. Patrick Calhoun, President United Railroads of San
Francisco."

[431] Calhoun's order placing the $100,000 to Ford's credit read as
follows:

"Cleveland, Ohio, August 21, 06. Hon. Frank A. Leach,
Superintendent United States Mint, San Francisco. Please pay
to General Tirey L. Ford, or order, one hundred thousand
dollars, and charge the same to my account. Patrick Calhoun,
President United Railroads, San Francisco."

[432] Calhoun's final receipt for the $200,000 was as follows:

"Received from Frank A. Leach, Superintendent U. S. Mint, two
hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) on c/d No. 5251, with
Asst. Treasurer U. S., New York.

PATRICK CALHOUN,
"President United Railroads."

[433] "I want to protect those (the contributors) whom I promised to
protect in this matter," said Spreckels. "Outside of that, the
matter is entirely an open matter; I have no concern in
it."--See Spreckels's testimony, Transcript of evidence in the
matter of The People vs. Patrick Calhoun, Page 3385.

[434] The statement in full of the expenditures of the Prosecution,
as shown in the transcript of the Calhoun trial, will be found
on page xxxiv of the Appendix.

[435] The charge of private prosecution was raised early. The
Chronicle of May 14, 1907, printed as part of Ford's statement
why he did not testify before the Grand Jury, the following:

"The private interests that are behind this attack upon the
officers of the United Railroads have free access to this
juryroom through their chosen counsel who has assumed to
exercise all the official authority of the District Attorney
of this city and who, by reason of the exercise of such
authority, has become the legal counsellor and guide of this
Grand Jury.

"The officers of the United Railroads are not unmindful of the
tremendous power for harm that lies in this unusual and
extraordinary situation.

"They, therefore, protest against the consideration by this
Grand Jury of any evidence whose legality and sufficiency
cannot be judicially determined from a full, complete and
correct transcript thereof.

"Second--The subpoena by which my attendance here was compelled
was not only insufficient in both form and substance, but was
served by a privately employed detective who is not a citizen
of California and who is employed and paid by private interests
notoriously hostile to the United Railroads.

"Third--There is here present a person not permitted by the
laws of this State to be present, namely, an attorney nominally
representing the office of the District Attorney, while, in
fact, representing private interests in no manner connected
officially with any of the governmental affairs of this city
and State.

"Fourth--I am the general counsel and legal adviser of the
United Railroads and its officers, and whatever knowledge I
possess of any of the affairs of the United Railroads or of its
officers, has come to me in professional confidence and, under
the law of this State, every attorney is compelled to keep
inviolate, and at every peril to himself, preserve the secrets
of his clients.

"Fifth--Under the statement of the representative of the
District Attorney's office in attendance before this Grand
Jury, I feel it my duty to stand with the officers of the
United Railroads upon my constitutional rights, and the
District Attorney knows that he cannot in these proceedings
compel me to testify, and he also knows that no unfavorable
inference is permitted to be drawn from our declination in this
regard."

[436] One of the most complete answers to the charges scattered
nation-wide by the Graft Defense, came from Dean John H.
Wigmore of the Northwestern School of Law at Chicago, author
of Wigmore on Evidence, (See footnote 283.)

[437] See transcript of testimony, The People vs. Patrick Calhoun,
No. 1436, page 3723.

[438] Mr. Spreckels finally testified on this point as follows:

"Mr. Heney. Q. At the time that Mr. Phelan agreed to
contribute the $10,000, Mr. Spreckels, what did you say, if
anything, about contributing yourself? A. That was in the
first meeting. I think, Mr. Heney, and I told him that I was
ready and willing to contribute a similar amount; that I
believed it would be possible to get others to join and
contribute.

"Q. At that time was anything said by any person about
prosecuting Mr. Calhoun? A. Absolutely no.

"Q. Or any person connected with the United Railroads Company?
A. The discussion was entirely confined to the administration,
the corrupt administration as we termed it.

"Q. At that time did you have any purpose or intention of
prosecuting Mr. Calhoun? A. I had not.

"Q. Did you have any reason to believe that Mr. Calhoun at that
time had committed any crime? A. I had no indication of such a
crime.

"Mr. Moore. Was that time fixed, Mr. Heney?

"Mr. Heney. Yes, it was fixed; the first conversation, and he
has fixed it as nearly as he could.

"The Court. Have you in mind the testimony on that point, Mr.
Moore? There was some reference to it in an earlier part of the
examination.

"Mr. Heney. Q. When you had the talk with Mr. Heney in April,
1906, did you say anything about prosecuting Mr. Calhoun, or
anybody connected with the United Railroads? A. I did not.

"Q. Did you at any time tell Mr. Heney, that you desired to
have him prosecute Mr. Patrick Calhoun? A. I did not, at any
time.

"Q. Did you tell him at any time that you desired to have him
prosecute any person connected with the United Railroads
Company? A. I did not."

[439] The Chronicle in its issue of March 19, 1907, the day after
the story of corruption of Supervisors was made public, refers to
the denials of United Railroads officials as follows:

"Weeks ago, when the first charges of a corruption fund was
published, Patrick Calhoun issued from his New York offices a
typewritten statement, equivalent to about three-fourths of a
Chronicle column, in which he announced:

"'I have just seen the San Francisco papers, in which vague
charges are made that the United Railroads of San Francisco
paid or caused to be paid $700,000 for a permit to use
electricity on the roads that it formerly operated with cable.
There is no foundation for this rumor. The United Railroads of
San Francisco never paid or authorized any one to pay on its
behalf a single dollar to the Mayor, Supervisors or any public
official of the city of San Francisco or the State of
California.'

"Late last night the following additional denial was issued
from the office of the United Railroads:

"'I am authorized to state in the most positive way that
neither Mr. Calhoun nor any officer of the United Railroads
ever paid or authorized anyone to pay one dollar to any
official.
'THORNWELL MULLALLY,
'Assistant to the President United Railroads.'"

[440] The following statement was published over the name of Otto T.
Hildebrecht, one of the two jurors who had voted to convict:

"As soon as we entered the jury room, I overheard a crowd of
the jurors in the rear of the hall shouting 'Acquit! Acquit!'
We then proceeded to name a foreman. This matter disposed of,
the members began balloting.

"In the first half hour three ballots were cast. On the first
vote it stood 8 to 4 for acquittal. On the second ballot
Maguire succumbed to the pressure. I called upon him for his
reasons for changing his vote and he replied: 'Oh, these
corrupt conditions have always prevailed in San Francisco. The
Supervisors in this case are no different from the other men,
who have filled those offices. It will always be like that.'
To combat this attitude on Maguire's part, I stated, 'Well, it
is time to stamp out the crimes in this, city. In order that
the evil may be corrected we must put a stop to it.' This
seemed to have no weight with Maguire.

"The next ballot showed that Anthes had gone over to the
others. From him I secured this information: 'Oh, why I always
vote with the majority.' I said, 'Why, how can an honest man
take that view of the matter?' I have taken an oath and at that
time announced that I would try this case solely on the
evidence.

"It is plainly pointed out in the testimony of Sanderson that
Calhoun was present when Ruef said, 'This thing will go through
on Monday. It is all settled.' This produced no impression upon
the others, although I argued that such testimony alone proved
Calhoun's guilty knowledge of the plan to put the deal through
when he remarked in answer to Sanderson's query, 'Then you
won't need me?' 'I don't think we do.'

"I then asked the other jurors to come into court, they
contending that Ruef had carried on the conversation with
Sanderson and that Calhoun was an innocent witness. We asked to
have this testimony revealed and the jurors filed into court.
Upon returning to the jury room we renewed our deliberations.

"The other ten jurors came at Binner and myself and sought to
induce me to stretch my imagination to the end that Calhoun had
paid the money to Ruef, but only as a fee. They acknowledged
right there that Calhoun had paid over the money but they
argued that he didn't know that the money was going to be used
as a bribe to the Supervisors,--only as a fee to Ruef. After
that I knew that these men had purposely taken the wrong view
of the whole matter. I had called them to account for the
remarks that the testimony throughout the case was all
purchased and that Heney had held the whip over the
Supervisors. Thereupon they backed down on that stand and made
their whole plea on the ground that Calhoun had given the
trolley money to Ruef as a fee.

"I disagreed on the ground that Heney, Spreckels and the other
members of the prosecution were not on trial as they insisted,
and that the other matters, such as the theft of reports and
suppression of testimony, had only been touched upon during the
trial to prove that Calhoun knew that the bribery deal had been
carried through.

"'Can't you give Calhoun the benefit of the doubt, that he paid
this money as a fee?' was the burden of the others' argument.
'I would be willing to extend him every chance,' I replied,
'but why has he not introduced these vouchers of the United
Railroads in court, then we might see what was paid to bribe
the juries in the Ford trials.' After this they dropped me like
a red-hot stove. I seemed to have struck home. It was a
terrifying ordeal to stand off these ten men for twelve hours,
but I held firmly to my course and voted throughout upon my
conscience. I should have been ashamed to have lifted my head
in the future had I fallen down and voted for an acquittal.
When the deputy, Mr. Coyle, called to convey the word to Judge
Lawlor as to the clearness of an agreement being reached, I met
him at the door that night. 'We shall never reach an
agreement,' I replied, 'unless these men come over to my side.
That I fear shall never come to pass.' The claim has been made
in the Globe that I asked for a secret ballot. That is an
untruth, as is the statement that I am a Socialist. Not that I
am opposed to Socialism, but I have never been inclined to
their views. Our political outlooks differ. When I told Coyle
that there was no chance of a verdict being reached, the other
jurors, one of those standing alongside of me, punched me in
the ribs in an effort to make me shut up, as they figured that
they ought to be able to convince me. I have received letters
from all over the State; friends and acquaintances, even utter
strangers, congratulating me upon my stand in the Calhoun case
and my vote for conviction."

[441] Calhoun, after the disagreement of the jury that tried him,
issued a statement to the press in which he bitterly denounced
those who were responsible for the prosecution, and hinted at
retaliation. He continued to insist that Heney was a corrupt
official: "There lies in the courtroom," said Calhoun, "forty
checks made by Mr. Rudolph Spreckels to Mr. Francis J. Heney
since his alleged appointment as Assistant District Attorney.
Those checks were deposited in the American National Bank to
his private account. They aggregate $23,800. The first of them
amounted to $4,900. They are the price of his infamy. He can
not escape the fact that he is a corrupt public official by
the contention that he has been engaged in a holy crusade. He
can not defend the acceptance of money from a private citizen
for the express purpose of enabling him to devote himself
exclusively to the so-called Graft Prosecution without
committing the crime of accepting a bribe. I here make the
formal and specific charge that Francis J. Heney stands side
by side with James L. Gallagher as a corrupt public official.
I charge him with having accepted bribes and I also charge
Rudolph Spreckels and James D. Phelan with having given him
the bribes; and if we can get a fair District Attorney in the
city of San Francisco I propose at the proper time and in the
proper way to submit formal charges against Heney for having
received bribes and Spreckels and Phelan for having paid
them."

Of Calhoun's threat of prosecution, The Call in its issue of
June 22, 1909, said:

"In that soiled and motley retinue of strikers and heelers,
jury fixers and gaspipe men that the head of the United
Railroads has gathered about him were many who made it a
business to proclaim that when the indictments came to the test
of fact in court the disposition of that $200,000 would be
explained as a perfectly innocent matter in the simplest
possible manner. How these promises have been fulfilled we
know. The mystery of that $200,000 remains as dark as ever. Not
even the stockholders of the company are invited into the
confidence of its president. It is not now the question, Where
did he get it? but What did he do with it?

"As long as that question remains unanswered by or for Calhoun
and as long as he refuses to undergo cross examination and the
ordinary legal tests of proof, just so long will the whole
American public believe him guilty of bribery. As for his
threat of some sort of vague legal proceedings against the
prosecutors, that will merely provoke a laugh, as men do laugh
at a cheap and obvious bluff."

[442] The free press, not only of California but of the entire
nation, protested against such a course. "San Francisco," said
the Pittsburgh Times-Gazette, "owes it to the nation to
continue her fight against the big grafters of that town. If
she lets up now the grafters the country over will take heart,
and the next time it becomes necessary to go after the tribe,
it will be more difficult even than it has been in San
Francisco to convict a briber."